English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This essay argues that the bold affirmation of the political, rather than the religious, purpose of his liturgical parodies enabled the journalist, satirist, and publisher William Hone (1780–1842) to turn three accusations of blasphemous libel into the triple defence of the freedom of the press during his trials in December 1817. Hone was accused of blasphemous and seditious libel for having printed and published three liturgical parodies in the early months of that year. These were  The Late John Wilkes’s Catechism of a Ministerial Member ,  The Political Litany, Diligently Revised  and  The Sinecurist’s Creed, or Belief . He conducted his own defence and, against the odds, was acquitted in all three trials. On January 23, 1818, Hone published the narrated transcripts of the trials. The present essay analyses and interprets those transcripts, highlighting Hone’s eloquence, his de-sacralisation of court ritual, and, most important, the strategic use of satire as a legitimate method of political criticism and as an index of the freedom of the press. The Conclusion focuses on the political and cultural significance of Hone’s rebuttal performance and claims his long-standing right to our attention.

“Thrice the brindled cat hath mew’d” – The Three Trials of William Hone